1900. 

The Presidential Problem 



FROM THE STANDPOINT OF 



PRACTICAL POLITICS, 



TOGETHER WITH A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE 



NATIONAL CONVENTIONS 



REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 



FOR HALF A CENTURY. 



The within three articles by Louis G. Hoyt, Esq., Secretary of the N. H. Republican 
State Committee, were written for the Exeter (N. H.) News-Letter, and are reprinted 
to satisfy a demand that they be published in pamphlet form. As first published the 
article on the "Presidential Problem" appeared last. 









65699 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEM. 



The renominatiou of bothMcKinley and 
Bryan follows a precedent which has 
happened but three times in the history 
of the country, where the same candi- 
dates have met in two Presidential elec- 
tions, and in each instance the victorious 
party in the first contest has been defeat- 
ed in the second. 

In 1824 and in 1828 JohnQuincy Adams 
and Andrew Jackson were the opposing 
candidates of the two great parties. 
Adams won in 1824 and Jackson in 1828. 

In 1836 and in 1840 Martin Van Buren 
and William Henry Harrison were the op- 
posing candidates. Van Buren won in 
183G and Harrison in 1840. 

In 1888 and in 1892 Benjamin Harrison 
and Grovcr Cleveland were opposed to 
each other as the Republican and Demo- 
cratic candidates. Harrison w^on in 1888 
and Cleveland in 1892. 

Should McKinley be elected this fall, it 
will be the only instance in our history 
where a candidate for President has suc- 
cessfully met the same opponent in two 
national contests. 

PARTY MAXAGEMENT. 

Few people realize the immense respon- 
sibility which will devolve upon party 
management as represented by national 
and state committees during the next 
few months. 

Apparently trivial matters happening 
at a critical time in the closing hours of 
a campaign have defeated the ambition 
of some of our greatest men, and changed 
the whole character of our national 
policy. 



Every word from now on publicly 
spoken by Mr. McKinley or Mr. Bryan 
will be flashed as news items to -the four 
quarters of the country and made the 
subject of general discussion. The oppo- 
sition will seek to distort every sentiment 
uttered by either into meanings never in- 
tended, but such as will tend to give party 
advantage. 

Experience has shown this danger to 
be so great that parties demand of candi- 
dates that they place themselves entirely 
in the hands of the party management, 
and we have but two instances where 
Presidential nominees have refused to be 
thus subservient, and in each case the 
party has suffered defeat in consequence. 

Blaine's mistakes. 

The most recent of these cases is that 
of James G. Blaine, whose ability as a 
manager for others was superior perhaps 
to that of any man of his day, but who 
made a lamentable failure as a manager 
for himself. 

Blaine not only directed his national 
committee to use the Cleveland scandal, 
which proved such a mistake, but digni- 
fied a similar scandal concerning himself 
by instituting a libel suit against a news- 
paper publisher. His permitting himself 
to be entertained by Jay Gould during the 
canvass gave the opposition papers an 
opportunity to point to this as evidence 
that he was under the influence of Wall 
street, and his giving Dr. Burchard an 
opportunity to address him in behalf of a 
delegation of ministers in the Fifth 
Avenue Hotel in New York, while on his 



way home from his western tour on the 
eve of the election, without having Dr. 
Burchard's address first submitted to him 
for inspection, were mistakes lie never 
would have allowed others to make, and 
but for which Blaine would have been 
President. He lost New York by only 
1200 votes, and Dr. Burchard's address 
wherein he alleged that Blaine's fight 
against the Democratic party was a fight 
against "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" 
was responsible for this result. Mr. 
Blaine made no allusion to it in his reply. 
As a result the words were prominent in 
scare headlines in all the Democratic 
papers of the state the next morning, and 
were impressed so forcibly upon the 
Catholics that Blaine lost a considerable 
part of that voLe which otherwise would 
have gone to him, and by this trivial in- 
cident was the life ambition of one of our 
greatest statesmen defeated. 

A change of less than GOO votes in New 
York state would have changed the re- 
sult in the nation. 

THE OLD PROBLEM. 

The adoption by the Democrats at Chi- 
cago in 1896 of a platform favoring the 
free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1 
placed safely in the Republican column 
Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, 
with a total of 52 electoral votes, states 
which had before been doubtful. The re- 
sult in these states had for some years 
been the determining factor in our Presi- 
dential elections. 

While Indiana bears the unique distinc- 
tion of being the only state which has 
cast her electoral vote for the winning 
candidate in every Presidential election 
since 1856, New York's only exception 
is when she voted for Seymour in 1868, 
omitting iu both cases the Tilden-Hayes 
contest, where by counting in certain 
Southern states for Hayes which had 
given Democratic majorities, he was 
given a majority of one in the electoral 
college. But unlike Indiana the vote of 



New York has determined the result in 
the nation in four recent elections. 

In 1876 New York state cast its vote 
for Tilden and would have elected Hayes, 
without these Southern states. In 1880 it 
cast its vote for Garfield, and its support 
would have elected Hancock. In 1884 it 
voted for Cleveland and would have elect- 
ed Blaine. In 1888 it voted for Harrison, 
and its vote would have re-elected Cleve- 
land. 

THE NEW PKOBLKM. 

With these three Eastern states against 
the Democrats a new pi'oblem in practical 
politics was presented, of carrying the 
the country for Bryan without their aid. 
It was realized by all that the Chicago 
platform declared for principles which 
had a large following in the West, and 
that their declaration would create new 
political conditions the exact efi'ect of 
which it was difficult to determine. 

Indiana had for. some years been the 
only Western state that had been reckon- 
ed doubtful, although in 1892 Wisconsin, 
for the first time in its history, and Illi- 
nois, for the first time since it voted for 
Buchanan in 1856, went Democratic, and 
Ohio and Michigan divided their electoral 
votes. 

It was evident that the silver issue was 
going to take some of these Western 
states which had heretofore been safely 
Republican and place them in the Demo- 
cratic column, but as no contest had be- 
fore been fought out on these lines it was 
uncertain as to how great the changes 
might be, there being no precedents to 
guide in forming an opinion. 

Mr. Bryan contended that on these 
issues he would carry the doubtful state 
of Indiana, and the Republican states of 
Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, Wyo- 
ming, Colorado, South Dakota, Montana, 
Nevada, California, Oregon, Iowa, Ohio 
and Illinois. He lost Indiana, but he 
carried the first eight of these Republi- 
can states, got one vote in California, 



but failed to carry either of tiie last four 
states, which was fatal to his election. 

The eight that he carried took from the 
Republicans 39 votes, which, with the 
one he got in California, gave him 40, or 
4 more than the vote of New York state, 
but in doing this he had lost Delaware, 
Maryland and Kentucky, three Democratic 
states which gave McKinley 23 votes; 
so from the 40 votes he gained in the 
West he had to sacrifice 23 votes in the 
South, which left him a net gain of only 
17 votes. 

THE LESSON OF THE RETURNS. 

An examination of the returns for 1896 
shows that some of the states which 
went for Bryan and McKinley were so 
close that they must be placed as doubt- 
ful in the present contest. 

States which have given the prevailing 
party a vote of 52 per cent., or less, of 
the lohole vote cast have always been con- 
sidered so close as to be doubtful for 
future results. 

The last election showed the following 
to be such states, in some cases the 
states being carried by a plurality merely. 

DOUBTFtTL MCKINLEY STATES. 

Electoral Votes. 

Indiana, 15 50.81 per cent. 

California, 8 49 29 " '' 

Kentucky, 12 48.93 " " 

Oregon, 4 50.01 " 

Four states with 39 electoral votes. 

DOUBTPUL BRYAN STATES. 

Electoral Votes. 

Kansas, 10 51.05 per cent. 

Nebraska. 8 51.93 " " 

So.Dakota, 4 49.09 " ' 

Wyoming, 3 , 51.06 " 

Four states with 25 electoral votes. 

To which should be added one vote 
from California and one from Kentucky, 
which went for Bryan, making a total of 
27 doubtful Bryan votes and 39 doubtful 
McKinley votes. 

The Democratic proposition will be to 
hold the doubtful Bryan states and carry 



the doubtful McKinley states, in which 
event the vote will stand as follows : 

McKinley's electoral vote. 1896 271 

Bryan's " " " 1'''" 

McKinley's majority in 1896 95 

Deducting the above 39 doubtful Mc- 
Kinley votes from the McKinley column 
and adding to the Bryan column gives 
this result : 

McKinley's electoral vote, 1900 232 

Bryan's " " "' « "1^ 

McKinley's majority , 17 

It thus appears that if the Democrats 
succeed in holding all of their own and 
carrying all of the Republican states held 
in 1896 by a vote of 52 per cent., or less, 
of the lohole vote cast^ McKinley will then 
have 17 more votes than Bryan, and, of 
the doubtful Bryan states, Kansas in the 
last election gave a Republican plurality 
of 15,000 for governor and Wyoming a 
Republican plurality of 1,394, showing a 
Republican tendency, to say the least, 
while Oregon has just given an increased 
Republican majority. 

A TOUGH PROBLEM. 

It must be borne in mind that the above 
computation gives the Democrats every 
state in the Union in which the Republi- 
can vote in 1896 did not exceed 52 per 
cent, of the tohole vote cast for all candi- 
dates, and not 52 per cent, of the com- 
bined Republican and Democratic votes. 
This makes, as the mathematicians say, 
"a tough problem" for the Democratic 
managers to successfully solve, but if 
they succeed in it they will still have a 
majority against them of 17 votes. They 
can overcome this only by taking nine 
more votes from McKinley states and add- 
ing to their own, which will, of course, 
make a difference of 18 votes. 

The Republican states in which the 

McKinley vote in 1896 was lowest, aside 

I from those appearing in the above list of 

doubtful McKinley states, are as follows, 



6 



the percentajje beiug that of the Republi- 
can vote to the lohole vote cast : 

Electoral 
votes. 

Ohio, 23 52.11 per cent. 

West Virginia, 4 52.42 " " 

Delaware, 3 53.41 " " 

Michigan, 14 53.92 " " 

Maryland, 8 54.60 " " 

Illinois, 24 5.5.66 " " 

To these states Bryan will have to look 
for these additional nine votes. 

The meaning of the above percentages 
and the difficulty the Democrats will have 
in overcoming them can be better under- 
stood when it is said that it would mean 
the wiping out of a plurality for Mc- 
Kinley over Bryan of 47,000 in Ohio, 11,- 
500 in West Virginia, 3300 in Delaware, 
56,000 in Michigan, 32,000 in Maryland, 
143,000 in Illinois. ' 

These are the problems with which the 
National and State Committees of the 
two great parties will have to deal during 
the next few months. ■ The partisans of 
each candidate in their zeal for tlie cause 



they espouse will, between now and elec- 
tion, daily elect their respective idols in 
club rooms and country stores and on the 
street corners, the sporting man will 
demonstrate the sincerity of his opinions 
by wagers regulated only by the size of 
his pocket book, the Standard Oil Com- 
pany will sell its petroleum to illuminate 
the anti-trust transparencies of both par- 
ties, and the gunpowder combine will 
run its works night and day to enable the 
politicians to keep up the courage of their 
constituents with Hreworks and noise. 

But the committees who have assumed 
the grave responsibilities of the cam- 
paign will not be misled by all this out- 
ward demonstration of patriotism and 
party loyalty. Their eyes will be fixed on 
the figures as they appear in the contests 
of the past, and the election of our next 
President will largely depend on the wis- 
dom of their interpretation. 

Louis G. Huyt. 

Kingston, N. H., July 5, 1900. 



REPUBLICAN CONVENTIONS. 



That sentiment of liberty which im- 
pelled the colonists of 1776 to rebel against 
the mother country had, from time to time 
during the first half of the pi-esent cen- 
tury, manifested itself in its sympathy 
with the colored population of the South, 
and while the desire for the abolition of 
slavery on the one hand and its retention 
on the other had in 185G not shown itself 
in the open rebellion of any of the states, 
yet on many occasions it had been threat- 
ened, and was such a bone of contention 
in congress and with the people that it 
not only formed a menace to the nation 
but a serious drawback to our prosperity 
as a people. The anti-slavery sentiment 
of the North was so strong at this time 
that it only required a spark to ignite it 
into a flame of indignation which would 
seriously threaten the continued ascend- 
ency of the Democratic party, which had 
been in power continuously since 1800, 
with the exception of the temporary 
Whig triumphs of 1840 and 1848. 

This spark was furnished by the pas- 
sage in 1854 of a bill providing for the 
organization of two new territories north 
of latitude 36.30, under the names of 
Kansas and Nebraska, and permitting 
slavery therein if the people desired it. 
This bill looked toward the extension of 
slavery, repealing the Missouri Comprom- 
ise of 1820, which expressly prohibited 
slavery north of 36.30, and aroused the 
most intense indignation throughout the 
North. 

THE FIRST REPUBUCAN CONVENTIOX. 

This feeling was so strong in 1856 that 
it was apparent it would become a lead- 



ing issue in the campaign, although 
neither of the then dominant parties had 
the courage to accept the issue in their 
platforms. The Democrats nominated 
Buchanan, and the American or Know 
Nothing party, whose principle of faith 
was that "Americans must rule America," 
nominated Millard Fillmore. 

In the convention which nominated 
Fillmore an eftbrt was made for the 
adoption of an anti-slavery platform, but 
the majority of the convention voting 
against it a large body of delegates seced- 
ed and nominated John C. Fremont, thus 
giving birth to the Kepublican party, 
which four years later came into power 
and which has practically ruled the coun- 
try ever since. 

THE LINCOLN CONVENTION OF 1860. 

In the election of 1856 the pivotal states 
were Pennsylvania and Indiana and the 
efforts of all parties were made to carry 
these two states, but the opposition to 
Buchanan was divided between Fillmore 
and Fremont, which assured Buchanan's 
success, but the returns showed that he 
had carried his own state of Pennsylvania 
by a majority of only 1025 votes and Indi- 
ana by a majority of only 1909. Fremont's 
immense vote in these states and through- 
out the North, which greatly exceeded 
Fillmore's, showed that anti-slavery was 
to be the chief issue between the con- 
tending parties of the future. 

These figures demonstrated that when 
the leaders of the llepublican party met 
in Chicago in 1860 to nominate a Presi- 
dential candidate their mission was not 



8 



so much one of sentiment as of practical 
politics. 

Volumes of romance have been written 
as to the success of Lincoln in that con- 
vention, and his defeat of Seward has 
been generally attributed to an admiration 
for the ability Lincoln showed in his de- 
bates with Douglass, but the returns in 
the Fremont campaign made it manifest 
that the national contest then pending 
was to be decided by the votes of Penn- 
sylvania and Indiana, and to the desire to 
nominate a candidate who could best 
unite the opposition to the Democrats in 
those states was due Seward's defeat in 
the convention. 

"William H. Seward in 1860 held a posi- 
tion as a leader in the Republican party 
analogous to that of James G. Blaine 
later, but unlilie Blaine he had few per- 
sonal enemies. Seward went into the 
convention with a large majority of the 
delegates favorable to his nomination, 
but the argument was advanced that both 
Pennsylvania and Indiana had their state 
elections in October, and it was absolute- 
ly necessary to win the October elections 
in order to carry these states in Novem- 
ber, and in each of them it was essential 
to secure the support of the large Know 
Nothing vote of these states, in order to 
carry them for the Republicans. Seward 
could not command this support, because 
he had advocated a division of school 
funds in New Yorli state between Catli- 
olics and Protestants, and the Know 
Nothings were hostile to anyone who had 
a friendly feeling for Catholics, The 78 
delegates from Pennsylvania and Indiana 
opposed Seward's nomination for this 
reason, and were united on Lincoln. As 
a result of this opposition Seward led 
Lincoln by only 71 votes on the first 
ballot, three votes on the second, and was 
defeated by Lincoln's nomination on the 
third. 

In the election, of the states which voted 
for Buchanan in 1856 Lincoln carried 
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois. Califor- 



nia and four votes in New Jersey, secur- 
ing a majority of 57 votes in the electoral 
college. 

Thus came into power a nevv party, 
which was destined for greater achieve- 
ments than have heretofore been accom- 
plished by any political organization in 
the history of either republics or em- 
pires. 

LINCOLN'S RENOMINATION IN 186'1. 

It would hardly be expected that any 
prominent Republican would allow his 
name to be used in opposition to Lin- 
coln's renomination, yet his opponents in 
the party were so numerous that they 
held a mass convention at Cleveland in 
1864, and nominated John C. Fremont 
for President. The regular Republican 
convention renominated Lincoln by ac- 
clamation, and he carried every state in 
the Union, except New Jersey, Delaware 
and Kentucliy, the Southern states not 
voting. At the time of his nomination, 
however, Lincoln had grave doubts of 
his re-election, and was so skeptical of 
the result of the October election in 
Pennsylvania that he furloughed ten 
thousand Pennsylvania soldiers to return 
home, "to vote as they fought." 

GRANT NOMINATED IN 1868. 

The position of General Grant as a pol- 
itician in 1868 was somewhat like that of 
Admiral Dewey in 1900 While Grant, 
like Dewey, had been given his opportu- 
nities for acquiring distinction by a Re- 
publican admiuistration in carrying out 
Republican policies, with which he was in 
entire sympathy, he had never voted any- 
thing but a Democratic ticket, and cast 
his first Republican ballot during his sec- 
ond term as pi'esident. 

The Democrats realized the demoral- 
ization in which the war had left them 
and they early began a movement to nom- 
inate Grant as their candidate, which 
likely would have been successful had it 
not been for the bitter fight the Republi- 
cans were making against Johnson, who 



then had Democratic support, and against 
whom Grant entertained feelings of in- 
tense hatred. While Grant was averse 
to leaving his life position in the army, 
he tinally consented to accept the Repub- 
lican nomination, which was given him 
by acclamation, his majority over Sey- 
mour in the electoral college being 134 
votes, but Seymour carried both New 
York and New Jersey. 

grant's renomination in 1872. 

Grant's administration had been par- 
ticularly factional, many of his army 
friends in whom he had placed his con- 
tidence had proven unworthy of it, and 
he was severely criticised, but the Re- 
publican opposition to him went into the 
Liberal Republican organization which 
nominated Greeley, so that w^hen the Re- 
publican convention met in Philadelphia 
it was harmonious, and Grant was nom- 
inated by acclamation, and in the elec- 
tion he defeated the different tickets op- 
posed to him by the overwhelmingnnajor- 
ity of 223 votes in the electoral college. 

BLAINE'S AMBITION. 

A sad fatality seemed to follow the 
presidential ambition of James G. Blaine, 
which in many respects resembled that of 
Henry Clay, each of whom had more de- 
voted admirers than any two men in our 
history. Clay was twice defeated for 
nomination in years when his party tri- 
umphed in the election, and was nom- 
inated in 1844 only to be defeated by 
Polk. Blaine was likewise defeated for 
nomination in the conventions of 1876 
and 1880, when the Republicans carried 
the elections, and was nominated in 1884 
only to be defeated by Cleveland. While 
the chief ambition of his life was to be 
president, he had always said he never ex- 
pected to attain it, but it was owing sole- 
ly to the mistake of managing his own 
campaign, to which I shall refer in an- 
other article, that he suffered defeat in 
the election. 



THE BLAINE — HAYES CONTEST OF 1876. 

Blaine entered the convention of 1876 
with a majority of the delegates favor- 
able to him, but ihe delegates from Penn- 
sylvania, which was strongly Blaine in sen- 
timent, were held by instructions to vote 
for Governor Hartranft of that state, 
and there were other complications 
which prevented his having a majority 
on any one ballot, although a majority of 
the delegates had during the seven ballots 
which resulted in the nomination of 
Hayes actually voted for him. The 
seventh ballot gave Hayes 384 to 351 for 
Blaine and 21 for Bristow. 

THE BLAINE-GARFIELD CONTEST OF 1880. 

The most celebrated convention in the 
annals of either party was the Republi- 
can convention of 1880, where Grant's 
memorable 306 delegates, led by Roscoe 
Conkling, Blaine's bitterest foe, stood by 
him through 36 ballots, and Blaine's 280 
delegates through 35. 

James A. Garfield was at the head of 
the Ohio delegation which was instructed 
for Senator Sherman, and his speech 
nominating Sherman attracted such fa- 
vorable attention that he was looked 
upon as a possible dark horse in case of 
a dead-lock between Grant and Blaine, 
but it was not until the 34th ballot that 
he had as many as 17 votes, which was 
increased to 50 on the 35th and on the 
36th he received the support of Blaine 
and was nominated. 

THE BLAINE- ARTHUR CONTEST OF 1884. 

The friends of Blaine had made such a 
stubborn contest In two conventions and 
he had yielded to defeat with so much 
grace that the sentiment in favor of his 
nomination in 1884 was so strong as to 
make it certain that it was within his 
reach. He had been defamed in his pre- 
vious contests without limit, and with 
the Grant-Conkling influence against him 
he had little heart to receive a nomina- 
tion and enter a contest where he would 



10 



have to meet not only the abuse of his 
Democratic opponents, but the vindic- 
tiveness of the hostile forces within his 
own party. He, however, allowed his 
name to go before the convention, and 
on the fourth ballot received o-ll votes to 
207 for Chester A. Arthur. 

The vote of New York state defeated 
him at the polls, and that state was so 
close that a change of less thau 600 votes 
out of a total of 1,167,000 would have 
given him the state. 

THE SHERMAN-HARRISON CONTEST OF 

1888. 

The Republican convention of 1888 had 
for its leading candidate John Sherman, 
of Ohio, for whom Pennsylvania had in- 
structed its delegates, and on the first 
ballot he had 221) votes, the next highest 
candidate being Judge Greshara, of Indi- 
ana, with 111 votes, the others being dis- 
tributed among ten other candidates. 
Sherman reached his highest vote on the 
second ballot, and it soon became appar- 
ent that he could not be nominated. Ben- 
jamin Harrison steadily increased his 21 
votes on the first ballot until he led Sher- 
man on the seventh and was nominated 
on the eighth, receiving one-half of Sher- 
man's strength. New York's delegation 
steadily supported Depevv. 

HARRISON RE-NOMINATED IN 1892. 

The party was practically united in 
favor of Harrison's re-nomination in 1892, 
which took place in the convention on 
the first ballot. He had aroused many 
antagonisms in the party during his ad- 
ministration, and had utterly failed to 
recognize the work of the leaders who 
had made his election possible. Blaine, 
it will be remembered, created surprise 
throughout the country by suddenly 
resigning as secretary of state just before 
the assembling of the convention, and 
starting for Europe. The opposition to 



Harrison showed itself in the convention 
in the 192 votes cast for Blaine and 192 
for McKinley. 

Harrison was badly beaten at the polls, 
Cleveland carrying New York, Connecti- 
cut, New Jersey and California, and the 
strong Republican states of Illinois and 
Wisconsin, and receiving five votes from 
Michigan. 

MC KINLEY NOMINATED IN 1896. 

The year 189G found our industrial con- 
ditions severely depressed and the cheap 
money heresy gaining headway with the 
rank and file of both parties in the West 
and South. The demand for some sort 
of relief from existing conditions seemed 
to center on the more liberal use of silver 
as money, so that each party was forced 
to yield to the sentiment, the Democrats 
declaring for the free coinage of silver 
at a ratio of 16 to 1, without regard to 
the attitude of other nations, and the 
Republicans expressing opposition to 
free coinage, "except by international 
agreement, which we pledge ourselves to 
support." 

This attitude of the Republicans on the 
financial issue caused the withdrawal of 
3-1 delegates from the western states, 
after which the convention nominated 
McKinley by an overwhelming majority 
over Reed. 

NEW PROBLEMS. 

The attitude of the Democrats on the 
silver question while strengthening the 
Republicans in the East weakened them 
in the West, and created problems in 
practical politics entirely new in the 
jiistory of our parties, which I shall take 
occasion to discuss in another article, 
after the platforms are made up at Phil- 
adelphia and Kansas City. 

Louis G. Hoyt. 
Kingston, N. H., June 4, 1900. 



DEMOCRATIC CONVENTIONS. 



To give a history of tlie conventions of 
the Democratic party would necessitate 
going bacii to the Congressional caucus 
which nominated Jeflerson in 1804. 

Prior to this tlie constitution provided 
that the Presidential electors should 
meet and eacli vote for two candidates 
for President, and the candidate receiv- 
ing the largest number of votes for 
President, if a majority, should be Presi- 
dent, and the second largest vote for 
President should be Vice President, but 
in 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Aaron 
Burr, both of the same party, received 
the same number of electoral votes for 
Pi'esident, whereby the election went into 
the House, each state being entitled to 
cast one vote and that to be determined 
by a majority of the delegation, a major- 
ity of the states being required to elect. 
For 35 ballots Jefferson received the 
votes of eight states and Burr of six, 
two states being tied in their delegations 
and so unable to vote. This made nine 
states necessary for a choice, and it was 
not until the 36th ballot that Jefferson 
was elected by the vote of Vermont, 
which broke the tie in its delegation by 
one of its delegates refusing to vote. 

This complication brought about an 
amendment to the constitution which 
took effect in 1804, whereby the electors 
were to vote for one candidate for Presi- 
dent and one for Vice President. 

At this time most of the electors were 
chosen by the legislatures of the several 
states, instead of by popular vote, and 
were supposed to use their individual 
judgment in voting for President, with- 
out any prior understanding or pledges, 
such as are implied in nominating con- 
ventions, but the experience of parties up 
to this time showed the necessity of a 



uniform understanding relative to the 
candidates to be voted for by the electors, 
before the latter were chosen. 

After this, and for many years, the 
Presidential nominations were made by 
members of congress in a congression- 
al caucus, and it was not until 1830 that 
a political national convention was held 
in this country, brought about by the 
death of AVilliam Morgan, who, it was 
claimed, was murdered by the Masons 
for revealing the secrets of the order, 
and originating the anti-Masonic party, 
which attained much power. 

This precedent was followed in 1831 
by the National Republicans, who nomi- 
nated Clay, and by the present Demo- 
cratic party, in 1832, which was called to 
nominate a candidate for Vice President 
only, Jackson's claim to selection as 
President being conceded. At this con- 
vention the Democrats adopted a rule 
which required a two-thirds vote to 
nominate, and which has been the rule of 
every Democratic convention since. 

From Jefferson's time until ISGO the 
Democratic party ruled the country, 
being disturbed only by the temporary 
Whig triumphs of Harrison over Van 
Buren in 1840 and of Taylor over Lewis 
Cass in 1848, neither of which changed 
the general policy of the country in any 
material respect. 

It being my intention only to refer to 
the Democratic conventions which have 
taken place since that party first met its 
present adversary in 1856, I will pass 
along to that time, except to refer to the 
convention of 1852 which conferred its 
distinguished honor upon a citizen of 
"New Hampshire. 

MEW IIAMrSIlIUK IIONOKED IX 1852. 

When the Democratic convention met 



^•'^ 



12 



at Baltimore in 1852 the Whig party was 
demoralized by the different views of its 
leaders on the question ot restricting 
slavery in its territory recently acquired 
through the annexation of Texas. Pres- 
ident Taylor began with one policy, 
which was soon changed by his death 
and the substitution of another by the 
elevation to the presidency of Vice Presi- 
dent Fillmore. 

Webster had cast his lot with Clay and 
the pro-slavery wing of the party, result- 
ing in the passage of the Clay Comprom- 
ise, which declared against the abolition 
of slavery in the District of Columbia 
and in favor of the admission of Utah 
and New Mexico as Territories without 
restrictions as to slavery. This meas- 
ure greatly weakened the Whigs, but 
was so acceptable to the Democrats of 
the North as to thoroughly unite that 
party. 

While the Democratic convention of 
this year was free from any bitterness of 
feeling, it tools 49 ballots to " nominate. 
Out of the 2S8 votes in the convention 
Cass started with 116, which he practi- 
cally maintained up to the 45th ballot. 
Buchanan started with !)3, and could do 
no more than hold his own. Douglass 
started with 20, and reached 92 on the 
30th ballot. There was no decisive 
change until the 35th ballot, when Vir- 
ginia, whose influence was then potential 
in Democratic circles, cast a solid vote 
for Franklin Pierce, whose name had not 
before been mentioned. Pierce doubled 
this vote on the next ballot, and remained 
practically stationary until the 49th, 
when he received substantially the unan- 
imous vote of the convention. 

Pierce's majority over Gen. Scott in 
the electoral college was overwhelming, 
Scott carrying only Vermont, Massachu- 
setts, Tennessee and Kentucky. His 
great victory over the Whigs, who car- 
ried all the larger states of the Union in 
the preceding election, except Ohio, has 
been urged on many occasions since as 



an argument in favor of the nomination 
of a "dark horse." 

Pierce was a gentleman of the old 
school, and a very good school it was, 
too. I remember passing him while he 
was driving with his wife when I, as a 
boy, was driving with another boy in one 
of Hampton's famous "dingle carts," and 
to our astonishment he saluted us with 
that genial smile for which he was noted, 
and with as much consideration as he 
would give a personal acquaintance. I 
speak of the incident because he was 
New Hampshire born and bred. 

THK PIEKCE-BUCHANAN CONTEST OF 1856. 

Pierce's administration had stirred up 
much sectional strife by his reopening the 
slavery issue in adopting as a Democratic 
measure the bill allowing the people of 
Kansas and Nebraska to decide the ques- 
tion of slavery for themselves, contrary 
to the provisions of the Missouri Com- 
promise of 1820. He was a candidate for 
re-election in the convention of 1856, and 
received 122 votes to 133 for Buchanan. 
His vote, however, gradually fell, and 
Buchanan's gradually rose, until the 
latter was nominated on the 17th ballot, 
and he was the last of the Democratic 
presidents for many years. The party 
became hopelessly crushed under the 
weight of slavery, not to rise until twenty 
years after the latter had been abolished 
by the hand of Lincoln. 

THE DEMOCRATIC SPLIT OF 1860. 

The Democratic convention of 1860 met 
at Charleston, April 23d, under most un- 
auspicious circumstances, with the party 
hopelessly divided in its slavery views, 
and its delegates opposed to each other 
in bitter rivalry for the enforcement of 
their several ideas in the party platform. 

The committee on platform made ma- 
jority and minority reports. Gen. B. F. 
Butler making a report of his own, and 
Senator Bayard still another. All the 
platforms were finally recommitted to the 
committee, which afterwards made two 



13 



reports. Finally the minority report, be- 
ing the Douglass platform, was adopted, 
whereupon the Alabama, Mississippi, 
Florida, Texas, Louisiana and South 
Carolina delegations withdrew, including 
Senator Bayard, of Delaware. 

The attendance being so largely de- 
creased, a rule was adopted that two- 
thirds of a full convention, being 202 
votes, should be necessary tor a choice, 
and the convention proceeded to ballot. 
Only 252 delegates were present, and of 
these, Stephen A. Douglass had 145 votes 
on the first ballot, and maintained this 
number for 57 ballots, being unable to 
obtain two-thirds of the vote of a full 
convention. The convention thereupon 
voted to adjourn to Baltimore, June 18th. 

The Baltimore meeting soon got into a 
wrangle over the admission of delegates, 
which resulted in the retirement of Vir- 
ginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Cali- 
fornia, Delaware, and a part of Maryland 
and Kentucky, and finally of their chair- 
man, Caleb Cushing. What there was 
left finally nominated Douglass, but the 
delegates present not numbering two- 
thirds of the full convention they had to 
decide that as Douglass had two-thirds 
of all of those present he was the party 
nominee. 

The seceders from this Baltimore con- 
vention immediately organized a conven- 
tion of their own and took in the seced- 
ers from the Charleston convention of 
April 23d. Caleb Cushing was made 
chairman, and John C. Breckenridge hav- 
ing all the votes cast was declared the 
Democratic candidate for President. 

In the election, while Douglass received 
only 12 electoral votes to 72 for Brecken- 
ridge, he received 1,375,157 popular votes 
to 847,953 for Breckenridge. 

MC clellan's chances in 1864. 

Strange as it may seem at this distance 
of time, there was a strong feeling in 1864 
that Lincoln could not be re-elected. 
Many of the strongest Republican leaders 



shared this feeling, including Chase, 
Wade, Greeley, Thaddeus Stevens and 
even Lincoln himself. The country was 
terribly weary of the war, and when the 
Democratic convention met at Chicago 
on August 29 the end was not in sight. 

General McClellan was the popular idol 
of the Democrats, and it was thought he 
had not been given a fair chance. He was 
then in retirement, having been removed 
from the army of the Potomac in 1862. 
He was accepted as the nominee of the 
convention on the first ballot, and could 
the election have taken place on the day 
of his nomination his chances for success 
would have been good, but the delegates 
had scarcely got home before the country 
was ringing with cheers for the success- 
ful arrival of Sherman at Atlanta, "-break- 
ing the backbone" of the Confederacy, 
and giving sunshine to us of the North, 
who had been for so long "waiting 
for the dawn of peace." As a result of 
these changed conditions he was over- 
whelmingly defeated. 

THE SEYMOUR CONVENTION OF 1868. 

In 1868 there was a large liberal Re- 
publican sentiment in the Democratic 
party favorable to the nomination of 
Chief Justice Chase, owing to the way 
Chase presided over the Johnson im- 
peachment trial, and in the resolutions 
of their convention they declared that 
"President Johnson is entitled to the 
gratitude of the whole American people." 
Early in the year there was also a move- 
ment by the Democrats to nominate Gen- 
eral Grant, who had never voted anything 
but a Democratic ticket. Samuel J. Tilden 
succeeded in stopping both of these move- 
ments. The convention met on July 4, 
Horatio Seymour presiding. The lead- 
ing candidates were George H. Pen- 
dleton, General Hancock and Thomas A. 
Hendricks. Finally on the 22d ballot, the 
convention being unable to unite on any 
of these, a break was made for Seymour 
and he was nominated. 



V 



14 



THE GREELEY CAMPAIGN OF 1872. 

No administration since Jackson's was 
so despotic as Grant's, and he alienated 
from tlie party many of its ablest leaders. 
There never was a time when so many 
strong men identified themselves with an 
open revolt from any party as in 1872. 

The leaders called a convention of Lib- 
eral Republicans to meet in Cincinnati in 
May. Charles Francis Adams, Horace 
Greeley and Lyman Trumbull were the 
leading candidates before this convention, 
which nominated Greeley on the sixth 
ballot by a slight lead over Adams. The 
Democrats held their convention in July, 
adopted the Liberal Republican platform 
and nominated Greeley on the first ballot. 
The character of Greeley's support loolied 
lilce his success, but the people were not 
with him, and Grant's victory at the polls 
was overwhelming. The Democratic op- 
position to Greeley found expression in 
the nomination of Charles O'Conor at 
Louisville in September. 

THE TILDEN CONVENTION OF 187G. 

Of the political organizers of the coun- 
try Samuel J. Tilden never had a superior. 
He was quiet, adroit and sagacious, and a 
man of large fortune, who had acquired 
a national reputation through his cour- 
ageous eftbrts to bring the Tweed ring to 
justice. When the Democratic conven- 
tion met at St. Louis in June it was 
apparent that he was to be the party 
nominee, but he was bitterly opposed by 
Tammany and they openly avowed he 
could never carry New York state, which 
would be essential for his election. 
Thomas A. Hendricks was his principal 
opponent, but Tilden was so far in the 
lead on the first ballot that he was nom- 
inated on the second, and Hendricks was 
taken for vice president. 

This ticket carried all the doubtful 
states of the North and West, but was 
defeated by the vote of three southern 
states which had Democratic majorities 
on the face of the returns. 



HANCOCK NOMINATED IN 1880. 

The Democratic convention of 1880 
met at Cincinnati, and the Democrats 
based great hopes for their success in the 
election in the factional quarrels between 
the Grant and Blaine forces in the Re- 
publican convention of three weeks be- 
fore. This was Grant's third terra con- 
test where he held his 30G delegates 
through 36 ballots, and his friends had 
refused to be reconciled to his defeat. 
Tilden's name was being urged until the 
second day of the Democratic convention, 
when he withdrew, owing to the violent 
opposition of Tammany, who openly 
threatened a bolt. The three leading 
candidates were General Hancock, Sena- 
tor Bayard and Samuel J. Randall, Han- 
cock being nominated on the second bal- 
lot. 

CLEVELAND'S FIRST CONTEST IN 1884. 

It fell to the lot of the Democratic 
convention in 1884 to nominate the first 
successful candidate it had had for over 
a quarter of a century. The political 
mistakes of Garfield's short administra- 
tion had so impressed themselves on the 
party that President Arthur's more dip- 
lomatic course was unable to entirely re- 
move their injurious efi'ect on Republican 
harmony. 

The attention of the cation had been 
called to the able administration of 
Grover Cleveland as Governor of New 
York by the immense vote he had re- 
ceived for that oflice, and his Independ- 
ence had made a profound impression 
upon the "mugwump" vote. When the 
Democratic convention met in 1884 the 
delegates were aware that New York 
would be the pivotal state in the election, 
and although he was earnestly opposed 
by Tammany, under the unit rule Cleve- 
land received the solid vote of the New 
York delegation, and was nominated on 
the second ballot. Bayard, Hendricks 
and Randall were his chief but not for- 
midable opponents. 



15 



CLEVELAND'S RENOMINATION IN 1888. 

The Democratic convention of 1888 
met at St. Louis June 5 and re-nominated 
Cleveland without a dissenting voice, 
but he was defeated at the polls. 

CLEVELAND'S GREAT CONTEST OF 1892. 

The Democratic convention of 1892 
was one of the most remarkable in the 
history of political parties in that Cleve- 
land, its nominee, was a resident of New 
York state, New York was recognized as 
the pivotal state in the election, and the 
New York delegation was solid against 
his nomination. 

The convention proceedings were ac- 
rimonious to an unusual degree. Cleve- 
land's forces were led by William C 
Whitney, and his opponents by that 
matchless orator, Bourke Cochran. On 
the first ballot he received 10 more than 
the necessary two-thirds I'equired to 
nominate, his chief opponents beiug Sen- 
ator Hill and Governor Boies, of Iowa. 

After the nomination it was generally 
conceded by all parties that he would 
meet defeat at the polls, but although the 
politicians were against him the people 
were with him, and he carried New York 
and all the doubtful states, and the Re- 
publican states of Illinois and Wisconsin, 
and received a part of the vote of Cali- 
fornia, North Dakota, Michigan and 
Ohio. 

BRYAN AT CHICAGO IN 189G. 

When the Democratic convention met 
at Chicago in 1896 the country was in 
a condition of great unrest owing to the 
existing industrial depression, and there 
was a persistent determination on the 
part of a large portion of the voters in 
the West to attribute all our ills to the 
restricted use of silver in our monetary 
system. 

The national committee was in the con- 
trol of the sound money men of the party 
and named Senator Hill for chairman, but 
the Silverites were so suspicious of the 
intentions of the sound money men that 
hey bitterly opposed his choice and 



carried the fight into the convention, 
where he was defeated by a vote of 556 
to 349. The committee on credentials 
decided all contests in favor of the free- 
silver delegates, after which a protracted 
debate was had over the platform, dur- 
ing which Governor Russell, of Massa- 
chusetts made an eloquent and what 
turned out to be the last speech of his 
life in favor of moderation, and William 
J. Bryan, who headed the contested Ne- 
braska delegation, which had been let in, 
made his famous "crown of thorns" 
speech in favor of free silver, after which 
the sound money plank of the minority 
was rejected by a vote of 626 to 303. 
The convention also refused to endorse 
the Cleveland administration. 

This result so enraged the sound money 
Democrats that 178 of them refused to 
vote for a candidate for President, and 
many returned to their homes with the 
fixed purpose to repudiate the whole 
thing by supporting the sound money 
candidate of the Republicans, among 
them being Frank Jones and Irving W. 
Drew, of New Hampshire. 

On the first ballot Bland, of Missouri, 
led with 235 votes, Bryan being next 
with 119, the balance being divided 
among ten candidates. On the second 
and third ballots Bland continued 
to lead Bryan, both gaining, and 
on the fourth Bryan had 280 votes 
to Bland's 241. On the fifth Bryan only 
lacked 12 votes of the necessary two- 
thirds, but before the vote was declared 
enough delegates changed their votes to 
give him the nomination. 

In the election the East went solid 
against Bryan, but he made great gains 
in the West, carrying many states that 
had before been loyal to the Republicans. 

Should Bryan be nominated at Kansas 
City, as he is certain to be, the prece- 
dents favor his election, but of this I shall 
speak in my next article. 

Louis G. Hoyt, 

Kingston, N. H., June 15, 1900. 



i 



011 695 594 5 • 



1 



- V 



